Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;332:1215-1216 (20 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7551.1215-b
EDITORWhile Goth subculture is the focus of Young et al's study, they cite only two references, only one academic.1 The authors have not consulted other pertinent studies2 3 and have not framed the results with respect to existing knowledge. For example, while Young et al show a prevalence of young men (about 2:1) in the "Goth" category, Hodkinson, whom they cite as reference 5, clearly states that the Goth subculture comprises equal numbers of male and female followers.
|
|
Credit: DALLE/REX
|
In addition, whereas Young et al find young women at risk of attempted suicide, the suicide rate for the 15-19 years age group in 2000 was 4:1 with respect to young men. Hence the results directly contradict what is logically expected.
Furthermore, members of the Goth subculture practise self harm almost exclusively by means of cutting, scratching, and scoring and not through more extreme methods such as punching or self poisoning. While the authors seek to link cutting, scratching, and scoring to depression, attempted suicide, and psychiatric illness, these techniques can be practised for a range of reasons. For example, in some subcultural contexts, they are used to induce fine scarring in decorative patterns on the body, much like tattooing or body piercing. Without an understanding of context, it is impossible to determine whether this is the case for the Goth subculture. However, the tendency for medical and mental health discourse systematically to misrecognise body modification as self mutilation or self harm has been noted elsewhere.4
Studies such as Young et al's with an epidemiological approach to assessing traits in subgroups habitually seem to support prevailing popular stereotypes. Perhaps this explains the ready acceptance and promulgation of the findings, while disregarding the lack of substantiation and generalisability, as well as the serious methodological flaws.
Michelle Phillipov, postgraduate student
Department of English, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia michelle.phillipov{at}adelaide.edu.au
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+